Follow Us!

Advertisement

Author's Featured Photo

Never mind the tail. It’s the logo, stupid!

January 6th, 2014

LAST MARCH, American Airlines unveiled its first major identity change in forty-plus years. The news broke as the carrier prepared to emerge from bankruptcy and prepared for its merger with US Airways.

American had bucked more than three decades of design fads. It’s distinctive silver skin, tricolor stripe and gothic “AA” logo dated back to the days of the its 707 “Astrojets.” Heck, my first ever airplane ride, in 1974, was on an American 727 decked out in the very same paintjob that, until last year, was American’s signature.

It was never anything beautiful, but what distinguished it was the logo — the famous “AA,” its red and blue letters bisected by the proud, cross-winged eagle. This was one of the last true icons of airline branding left in the world. Created by Massimo Vignelli in 1967, it was everything a logo should be: elegantly simple, dignified, and instantly recognizable.

The redesign features a U.S. flag motif tail, a faux-silver fuselage, and an entirely new logo that is so unspeakably ugly that it nearly brings tears to my eyes.

The logo — the trademark, the company emblem, to be reproduced on everything from stationery to boarding passes — is the heart of an airline’s graphic identity, around which everything else revolves. It has been said that the true test of a logo is this: can it be remembered and sketched, freehand and with reasonable accuracy, by a young child? The Pan Am globe, the Lufthansa crane, the Delta tricorn, Air New Zealand’s “Koru” and many others meet this criterion beautifully. As did the AA emblem. Maybe they need a tweaking or two over time, but the template of such logos — the really good ones — remains essentially timeless. American Airlines had one of the really good ones. And if you’ve got something like that, you dispense with it at your peril.

I was at Kennedy Airport recently and had the opportunity to view several American Airlines jets — some in the old paintjob, others in the new one. I’m sorry, but there was nothing old or anachronistic looking about the AA emblem. It did not need to be “refreshed,” or “modernized,” as some have suggested. Particularly if you’re replacing it with something so utterly vapid. What exactly is that new, Greyhound Bus-esque logo? It looks like a linoleum knife poking through a shower curtain. If it’s not the worst corporate trademark the airline business has ever seen, I don’t know what is. I can’t imagine a kid with crayons trying to sketch it. Why would anybody want to? It evokes nothing, it says nothing, it means nothing. It gives American Airlines all the look and feel of a bank or a credit card company. I cannot believe how awful a mark this is, and how anybody signed off on it I’ll never understand.

Its uglier, even, than the hideous Horus head of the new EgyptAir. It’s uglier, even, than the “rising splotch” that Japan Airlines came up with a few years back to replace its beautiful tsurumaru — the circular, red and white crane/Rising Sun it had used since 1960 (and which, by the way, JAL has wisely resurrected).

I’m hardly the only person put off by the new branding. It was controversial from the start, and among those who hated it most were thousands of American’s own employees. Finally, last month, CEO Doug Parker put things to a vote, allowing the carrier’s employees to choose between the new look, or a quasi-retro design that incorporated both the old and new schemes.

By a margin of about 2,000 votes, of some 60,000 cast, workers chose to stay with the new look.

Parker says he is happy about the result. But if he got what he wanted, that’s probably because the vote was effectively rigged. Parker won by making the airplane’s tail the focus of the vote. This misses the point, because like it or hate it, the piano key tail isn’t really the problem. It’s the logo that’s the problem. Neither of the choices dealt with the linoleum knife. In fact, Parker’s retro design would have kept both logos in use — a ridiculous, half-baked appeasement that would have left the plane looking manic and jumbled. A company can’t have two logos.

The smarter compromise would have been, and should have been, to keep the new tail, but dispense immediately with the linoleum knife and put the “AA” on the fuselage. Had this option been put to a vote, I suspect it would have won by a healthy margin.

To be clear, I’m not arguing that American didn’t need a spruce-up. The striping and typeface were overdue for a revision, and livery changes are all but mandatory, it seems, when airlines exit bankruptcy. And I can live with the tail and with the faux-silver body paint. Doing away with the AA symbol, however, was a tragic and unspeakably bad call.

As an English person this is just my opinion, but there are some things that are unique, wonderful and intrinsically beautiful American icons that should be updraded only with absolute sympathy, think Airstreams, Ford Mustangs, Rubicon Jeeps etc. Therefor it was a shame to me to lose the polished metal of the original livery on AA aircraft. The newer faux silver body paint is no longer beautiful, but boring and no longer sets it apart from the other airlines in the same way. Having said that they have become much more customer focussed since merging with US airways and so are a lot more of a pleasure to fly with 🙂

When I think American Airlines, the first thing that pops into my head is a nice, shiny, stainless steel fuselage with red, white, and blue pinstripes across the side with AA on the back, and the sunset reflecting off of the shine of the plane. Nevermind the sunset, but still, I don’t think of an ugly dull silver, but like you said, it’s really that stupid, weird tricolored slash with the little curly thingy coming off of the side. That logo has nothing to do with the airline, unlike ‘AA’ which was instantly recognizable and briefly summarized who the logo belonged to with the company’s initials as its logo, along with the X shaped feather and egale, which complemented the letters quite nicely. In my opinion, the new livery was just a bad idea from the beginning. When you look at the new livery you have to read the ‘American’ on the side just to know who’s plane it is. Unlike the old livery which you knew whose it was from the get go. I hope American will decide to switch back to their original livery.

My friend and I were exchanging messages about the sad death of the American Airlines Captain when we came to know about the aircraft livery changes. There is an old saying, “If it aint broke, don’t fix it.” This surely applies in this case, the AA tail logo could be recognised, even from a long distance, the new design has no class at all. I’m sure any infant school child if asked, would not have made such a mess of it. I just hope British Airways do not think of hiring the ‘donk’ who thought of this, to do any work on our aircraft.

Get rid of the new logo completely. Then slightly modify the old logo to have a contemporary look. For instance, the type font could be modified. General Electric still has the same logo for a century, but it has been slightly updated to good effect. AA made a mistake dropping an iconic logo.

I’ve flown American many times over the past year. I love their new planes, but the new logo and tail remain total crap. I hope the employees vote to keep the AA logo and that they find a sensible way to use it.

I’d love to know more about how design firms come up with such awful designs and about how companies decide to adopt them. This the same thing as the redesign of the Gap logo from 2012 and that awful University of California logo that came and went earlier this year.

Yeah, still no love from me for that design. Especially the tail. Any designer worth their salt would tell you, you paint the tail to appear it larger than what the vertical fin is, it messes up the overall proportion of the plane. That is one of the ways car companies hide their future model’s shape when road testing their still-classified cars.

But American made it part of their permanent design. And of course, an emblem that means zilch, something that looks like it came out of Logo Designer dot com.

Totally agree with you about the logo. The AA was just classic; the new logo looks like squat. And while we’re at it, how about bring back the Lockheed Super Connie, for limited runs at inflated prices for nostalgia freaks?

“If it’s not the worst corporate trademark I have ever seen, I don’t know what is.”

When the former Bush maladministration was off nation building,John Bolton was installed as its representative to the UN. All of my friends complained that his arrogant, militaristic, pee-on-your-grave attitude was abhorrent. “Well, yet it is,” I countered, “but nonetheless I do think he’s an excellent representative of the current maladministration.”

And so the worst corporate trademark ever represents one of the worst airline corporations ever. It fits.

I’ll be damned if I can understand why American or Iberia need to change a blessed thing. Valujet after the Everglades disaster, yes, OK. But short of something like that, there’s much to be said for an enduring and recognizable brand. Iberia has looked great lo these past 35 years.

You didn’t mention the utter failure that is the “new” United logo. Which is a terrible combination of the worst pieces of Continental and United’s old logos. I guess they left out the GMST, but it’s still pretty darned hideous.

It’s not that bad (it’s rather attractive, actually, in a boring sort of way), but you’re right — and I say the same thing in my book — they managed to take the least interesting aspects of the UA and CO liveries and combined them. There’s no excuse for using the CO “soup strainer” tail.

Inasmuch as I am strictly traditional, when done right and I mean right….., with taste, elan, class, intelligence, I will accept a new design – in this case a rebranding. American Airlines was becoming admittedly a bit “tired” in their many years design, but please……, you do not throw out the baby with the bath water as they now have with this unconscionable hipster ‘kabuki design’ as it were…….. Whew…. Disgusting. Tasteless. Classless. Stupid.

That tail design screams vomit bag. And then some.

Was the designer on not just LSD, but, as well, meth AND crack? Obviously. And the “best” part of this monstrosity being that the client signed off on same. And for a public company no less. Unreal. How bad American……? By virtue of your new design I will go out of my way to never fly you unless it’s absolutely necessary and even then, I’ll take the bus. After all, your shockingly racist and wholly insulting preferential “Black Atlas” program put you six feet under with many non negroes beginning with myself, this design gaff-O-rama is your headstone.

WOW….am I the only one who loves the new logo? I worked with United for eight years and specifically didn’t apply with American because I thought the planes were so dated. It is important to change with the times and American became a beacon of a company that was lost in the past. The planes were old and the logo was old.
Now working with US Airways I’m looking forward to the new AA livery although Doug Parker, US Airways and the new AA CEO, isn’t convinced it is staying.
Keep in mind that AA couldn’t keep the silver because the new planes, like the 787, are made out of a composite, and not the same bright silver of the past.
At first I thought the engines should be another color but that is also starting to look dated…like the Delta and US Airways blue engines.
The plane looks sleek and the large American letters look great.
The only thing I agree with is the eagle doesn’t work for me…way too stylized.
My goal would be the US Airways flag replacing the funky eagle and call it a day.

I agree with you! I love the new look, I think the new branding finally brings American into the new century and not stuck in the 1950’s. The tail may be a bit garish, but somehow it pulls it off with looking modern and very reflective of the US flag. I think if they’d put a star (or stars) on it, it would have been too much.

It’s horrible, very horrible, i always wanted to pilot an AA plane, wiht it’s logo, their stripes and the campus AA logo, but now i must soy that if i bache a pilot, i will never pilot those horrible planes.

clown plane. American hired a company that doesn’t know or care about design, a marketing co. that just wanted to get paid to make everybody happy. Amateurs. There was room for change/updating their image but the balance of change was completely lost. A lost opportunity.

Loved the old logo and colors. Yes, the new logo, the tail colors – awful indeed. I understand the change from the silvery finish to another color for the fuselage, as the newer planes joining the fleet would be made of a carbon-graphite composite.

I read somewhere that the lady who designed the “new look” (!@#$%^&*) was awarded for her artsy efforts.

Sorry guys bring the old logo and the tail design back. If they don’t maybe I should forget my Advantage program. But given the market conditions, whose program would I switch to?

I know the old logo is well known but it comes a time when it’s time to change. A merger between two airlines is a good start. The old logo was pretty dated and had a 1950’s look to it. I like the new logo. The livery is much cleaner and bolder and iconic. Hard to believe anyone could be offended by a change in logo. That’s a bit over the top I think.

I for one enjoy it. SimPainting over that bare aluminum and reinventing the airline is something they’ve needed! 40+ years… come on guys. UPDATES have to occur to keep public and invigorate interest about the company. Plus honestly, I was getting pretty damn tired of looking at glare of the bare aluminum and just two colored “A’s” and an Eagle on. Lack of inventive and honestly quite cheap looking. This paint overall is quite simple, just a painted fuselage, contemporary wind swetp flag, and little AA flavor up front. Nothing beyond ‘simple’ with this. So I do feel it is ‘elegantly simple’ that is ‘dignified’, and who the hell would say this isn’t ‘instantly recognizable’, minus all the damn glare! I like it

As a professional designer and private pilot/aviation geek, I couldn’t agree with you more, Patrick. AA could easily have evolved/updated/protected the successful elements of their branding to last another couple of decades, (Lufthansa anyone?), but they threw the baby out with the bath water.

The new livery brings the airline in line with the premium carriers of the world. Fresh look could also mean positve new launches of new sevices, developing the 60’s model of inflight care to a new level.

At least the airline didn’t go the Southwest route. Hello Tacky. The anouncements on board could include “sit back and let the crew show you how much our standards have dropped”.

Or worst still, follow the old British Airways branding of world art on their tails. The airline lost its presence and identity.

My sense of the blog entries above is not that anyone is “mired in the past.” I don’t think we’re anymore married to the AA logo than Canadians are married to AC’s maple leaf design.

But entering the 21st century doesn’t mean that any change is a good one. This update is not a good one, and as I mentioned earlier in the blog, I bet there will be some tweaking of it in the next several years. Let’s stay tuned.

Ken, Air Canada would have been better off keeping their previous logo. It was a classic. As for Americans, we are not wed to the past, but instead dislike change for the worse. American’s new design, like Air Canada’s new logo, is just that… change for the worse.

My first impressions:
1. Are you kidding?
2. The tail looks like a piano keyboard
3. The livery looks like something from the US Postal Service
4. It’s too “tail heavy”
5. Oh, I guess that’s the eagle?

But, in fairness to AA:
1. New composites have forced them to re-think the silver, unpainted look of the past
2. An update was overdue
3. The AA/US merge dictated some sort of change
4. At least they kept the red/white/blue colors

Other, very subjective comments:
1. The “AA” was used in clever ways, such as their AAdvantage program, and its “Plan AAhead” redemption, etc. What now?
2. The UA/CO livery is a huge success – fresh and light with its “world” logo totally in keeping with the name “United.”
3. I get the stylized flag motif, but I’d leave that for the USPS, Amtrak, etc.

Having said all that, we’ll all probably get used to it in time. Very few new liveries are ever widely embraced. My guess, is that in a few years, they’ll be revisiting this one, much as Delta did.

Funny how I came upon this site/article. When someone sent me the news of the liv change at AA, my first visual association to the new logo was..Greyhound lines. So I went to google images to get a reminder why and lo and behold, there among the hundreds of Greyhound bus logo pics was ONE of the new AA livery, linked to this site. So I gave a look assuming I’d find my suspicion confirmed. Sure enough, Mr. Smith slipped the observation into a superb critique. And to find several cogent, stimulating comments following made for a pleasant, serendipitous little browse today. Thank you all.
ps: why do these corporations keep “stylizing” the American flag, anyway? Perhaps they feel they’ve taken ownership of it? A healthier society would have zero tolerance for such nonsense.

“We recognize that individuals make up American’s incredible team and we are creating a wardrobe of pieces that will make each person look and feel amazing. We want to send a very powerful message when the plane door opens and a new iconic look emerges.”

If I were thinking of “merging”, it would not be with an organization who proved themselves adept at wasting even more money. The cost of painting even a single airplane has to be enormous – never mind paying the soul-dead designers who thought up this confused mess. And that tail! Is there no sense of history – or shame? Having the tail of an A-300 fall off might cause a decent airline to tone down the past and perhaps divert attention elsewhere. Try the wings next time, just put all that crap on the top where – at least from the ground – we can’t see it.

John Bolton, the US representative to the UN during the second Bush maladministration, is someone I considered a great success – for he brought to bear the true America: jingoistic, arrogant, pushy, and blatantly mediocre.

It looks like this one is a loser by all of the comments I’ve read, but I must chime in that I always hated the red white and blue stripe of the previous livery, BORING. My favorite American livery was the orange thunderbolt seen on the first 707’s and Astrojets with the AA Eagle, and on their aircraft dating back to the DC-3. There are some parts of the new livery I like which is the simple cleanliness, and airline name, no longer gaudy, but refined, and the painted fuselage in a silver tone. I think this was necessary since planes like the 787 are composite, and will no longer be silver. I also agree that the AA Eagle logo should have been retained, and maybe updated with a real Eagle in it, or a better stylized one than on the red white blue livery. The thing that really disappoints me is the new tail which I guess is supposed to represent an American flag. I was hoping to see American introduce some new colors into their new livery rather than the boring red, white, and blue. I hoped that they might go back to the thunderbolt in an updated stylized form, or maybe introduce more rainbow colors, rather than sticking with r,w,and b. I like the new livery better than the stripes, but do wish they had retained the Eagle logo in a more identifiable form.

The new AA logo & paint design sucks big time. They had a good & long time reconizable logo. A picture representing a company is making use of universal language. People of all languages can understand it without, knowing how to read a name spelled out. Based on simple knowledge like that why on earth would they change a good thing. I understand changing the silver to a painted silver cause the new plane materials, maybe changing something on the American name that’s spelled out on the side of the plane or something, but changing the logo is just plane stupid. Personally I was fine with the logo & paint design, the one I grew up on & remembered since I been alive which has been nearly 40 years. To me it represented an airline that said it ment business & it had strength to meet your needs. Now they just want to have a design that represents a casualness. Just a side note the major rail company I work kinda did the same thing, went from something reconizable to something boring & cheesy.

“I understand changing the silver to a painted silver cause the new plane materials …”

Dennis, that was an excuse they wheeled out to hang the whole sorry revamp business on, but it was just that — an excuse!

They flew beige-primed BAC One-Elevens in the 1960’s that were aluminum-foiled, and gray-primed A300s in the 1990’s. I think aluminum-foiled 787s would have looked great, and would have won them respect for the nod to tradition.

AbsolutelyAppalling
The typeface is fair. The anaemic and out-of-place “Flight Symbol” is straight out of 1980s bank branding. Its halftones were passe in the 1990s! The tail is straight out of Latin America. There is no attention to detail — bare engines, bare winglets…
It all feels like a minor post-Soviet nation’s idea of what a go-ahead airline ought to look like. A self-respecting African startup would have done better.
AMR ought to be sued for dumping a world top ten brand at a time of corporate turmoil and replacing it with this hodge-podge! This sets a new definition of corporate hubris!

That part where you mention whether a logo can be drawn by a child freehand from memory? That jumped out at me, because on a flight just two days ago, I started sketching the liveries and tails of major US airlines, and even though I fly United more than American, I could draw the American plane while I had to look at a picture to remember what the United (Continental) globe looked like.

If AA’s new design is patriotic, why is the American flag reduced to an abstraction that is beyond recognition? All I can say is that the new design is completely lacking the tasteful elegance of the old, and screams commercialism in a new﻿ toy sort of way. If you find the new design unattractive, please sign this petition started on Change.org:

I like the old logo and livery. (And I still have a patch from the ’70s that a friend got me – silver, with orange & blue lettering. A collectible.)

I’m curious if AA will have the guts to add the new logo on the JFK terminal wall alongside the existing collection showing its transformation over the last decades? That will show how uninspiring the new one really is.

American can paint its planes any way it wants. It will still be a long time before I willingly book AA again–or actually pay for a seat once I use the last of my miles. Too many old, dirty planes, surly crews, indifferent staff on the ground. An awful C-class trip JFK-LHR a couple of years ago on a tired 777–we’re not even talking one of AA’s century-old M80s–with bad food, dirty seats, and unpleasant attendants was the last straw. The competition beats it by a mile–including in terms of graphics. Lazy, cartoonish effort at an update.

I think the problem people have with the new livery is change. The now old AA look was so familiar, mind you it lasted more than a few decades, and AA is not a small company were brand identity is unimportant. As a graphic designer but also a plane fanatic I can say this new paint scheme is as good as the old one, it is instantly recognizable and no people, look beyond the change, it is not bad. Someday, maybe 50 years from now most of us will be complaining at the new livery.

Like I said in response to another poster, I’m not arguing that American didn’t need a spruce-up. The striping and typeface were overdue for change. While I’m not terribly fond of new tail or fuselage, my complaint is mostly about the total abandonment of the AA logo and its replacement by that hideous Greyhound-meets-Bank of America thing.

The AA letter logo has changed through all the years, but has always been distinctive. That tail looks like it was in a printer paper jam. I’m looking at a flag across the street right now. The red and blues are deep and certainly very, very different from the new choice.

And “older person”? I’m 46, and I’ve been writing (ranting?) about airline identity/liveries in my columns and blogs for the past ten years.

I’m not arguing that American didn’t need a change of some kind. The striping and typeface both, I think, needed refreshing. (Honestly, I don’t hate the piano key tail the way a lot of people seem to.) That’s not what this is about. The gist of my complaint is the abandonment of the AA emblem and its replacement by that ugly linoleum knife.

The comment, “…obviously written by an older person who hasn’t been able to keep up with changing trends…” would be a valid response if the new livery didn’t appear to be designed by an older person who hasn’t been able to keep up with changing trends.

Bullcrap! Age has nothing to do with it. I’m a good bit younger that Patrick and I happen to agree with him.

The new American logo looks a little bit too Web 2.0 to me. That style in itself is pretty dated (it was current more than 5 years ago). Yes, that’s right, the new log itself hasn’t kept up with trends.

Next thing you know they will force us to become citizens. This is extremely offensive. I don’t like America forcing me to see the countries colors. I will get a petition going to get this banned or to boycott the airline. I hate seeing America’s colors and the American flag.

The plural of country is countries. The posessive is country’s. My suggestion is not to fly U.S. carriers. I sure do not see the flag on this aircraft, and there is also a small flag on each U.S. certified aircraft that you must have missed, but that is beside your point. Relocate?

As you mentioned, it’s a “small” flag not noticeable unless you are looking for it. When you compare apples to oranges you only perpetuate the stereotype of loud garish obnoxious Americans, similar to this “new” tail design.

You want to live in our country but you don’t want to become a citizen and our flag offends you? Get he **** out of our country then. Only in America is this kind of garbage tolerated. Take your ass to China and tell them you are offended by their flag and see what happens to your ass.

That is offensive to me. I don’t want to see these colors. I think we should boycott them to change them. I fly american all the time. Now I feel forced to see the american flag. Shame on them for doing this.

I see america’s colors and the airline is american airlines. That is itself is offensive, I want to live in america without seeing it’s colors. There is nothing wrong with that. If it were up to me I would ban the american flag and anything resembling it’s colors. It is extremely offensive!!!

The old logo was timeless and classic. Why mess with perfection? True, some updating is fine, but why discard all these decades of marketing and identification? I agree that the AA eagle logo will appear again in the future once: it is elegant and irreplaceable.

You said it Thomas. I was working for DL when Leo Mullin decided to rebrand and we went got that God-awful interim paint scheme. Then they tried taking the angles out of the widget. Yes indeed, the AA “scissor” eagle will be back sooner than we know.

I am glad others recognized the Greyhound look. Its the first thing i thought of when i saw it. I showed my wife who said you had better not share that with American or they will put you on the “do not upgrade” list. (AA EXP).

It was not unpainted. A clear coat was used to maintain the shine. The sheet aluminum alloy used is clad with a very thin coat of pure aluminum. Pure aluminum rapidly forms a microscopic oxide layer which is not shiny. The clear coat is applied before the oxide layer can form.

So there was very little, if any, weight or cost savings associated with the shiny aluminum look.

They lie to the bankruptcy judge and say they cannot be successful, unless they tear up all our contracts and force us to take concessions (again). 70,000+ employees harmed in the process. A few months later they blow hundreds of millions on a hideously ugly logo and unnecessary rebranding effort just for funsies. Typical disgusting thoughtless management behavior. It should be illegal.

I don’t think the logo is all that bad. A bit overly minimalist, perhaps, but not horrid. The red, white, and blue says “American” without saying it, and it references the eagle in the old logo. Not great, but not awful.

My beef is with the rest of it. I don’t think the oversized grey “American” works, partly because it attempts to ignore the windows, but they are simply too contrasty to get away with that. And like Chuck, all I see when I look at the tail is piano keys. Is there a piano lounge on board, like there was in Airport ’77?

I disagree. It doesn’t say ANYTHING. And if it does say American, it doesn’t say it with the class and style of the “AA.”

“…it references the eagle in the old logo…”

Not really. And as somebody else pointed out, it’s a logo that relies too much on color. As a SHAPE it’s pretty useless, which for a logo is a terrible mistake.

There are no excuses for the logo (the eagle’s Beak, the Linoleum Knife, whatever you want to call it). It’s a horrible emblem. It’s ugly, it evokes nothing (except a bank or credit card company), and without color it’s just some bizarre, incoherent random shape.

Simple is beautiful. Complicated looks, well, complicated. There was a general trend in the late 60s and early 70s toward simple (AA, Air Canada, Alitalia, KLM, etc.). This has now been replaced by a trend toward complicated overreach.

Like some on other forums have said, when I first saw the redesigned logo, I figured they’d at least put it on the tail. Hell it has the same slope as the tail, so why not? That new tail seems out of place

This logo is just horrendous and embarrassing. The first thought I had was “what the hell is that 7′ tall pair of 3D glasses”. Then I realized it looks more like a shark fin leaving a bloody trail of our employee contracts in its wake. (which is quite fitting actually, if they are trying to rub it in our faces). It looks nothing like a bird anymore. Also, on top of that the spacing is off, it’s too far away from the writing and the angle doesn’t even match.

It looks like somebody plagiarized and tweaked the greyhound logo for the side, then threw a Colgan-esque tail on it. How is that original and innovative? A child with down-syndrome could come up with a better design. When the critique’s across the internet are overwhelmingly negative.. that should be a hint.

The only thing really acceptable about the whole thing is the big lettering. I could have done that on my iphone in 2 seconds though.

Why did they not have an employee vote on the designs? All the other design proposals we have seen were far better than this.

to be honest.. I don’t “hate” the tail.. I think it could be better and certainly more original. But I don’t mind having an American Flag on my plane. It’s that atrocious failure of a logo that really pisses me off. It will now be on everything plastered all over everything we have.

OK, I hate the new logo too. But something really should have changed about AA’s livery a long time ago. The old one looks great on an MD-80, but the proportions (especially the Helvetica “American”) never quite fit properly on the somewhat bulkier modern fuselages like the 737 or 777.

Still, there should have been a way to improve the general style without ditching the iconic eagle.

Not painting the old aluminum skinned planes was cool and classic. Painting composite skinned planes aluminum is just wrong on so many levels. Every new plane introduced/ manufactured from this point forward will be partially/ mostly/ entirely composite, so paint is here to stay.

Choosing a light grey echoes the silver past, while trying to keep the paint as light and therefore as low-weight as possible. You know, to economize on fuel, be green, or have more money left over to pay employees better or to offer lower fares.

The tail is bold. Takes some getting used to, but at least the planes won’t look like everyone else’s. Imagine they took the boring path and made the plane white with some blue design tail or blue and red design tail. You won’t get that “Is that Delta, British, jetblue or American?” look.

Now they need to work on repairing labor relations and merging the 2 airlines. Neither task will be easy. Concerns about livery will seem quaint in the not too distant future.

You got it all wrong, that’s not an eagle’s beak pointing through a shower curtain. It is just a red decal incorrectly applied to the airframe and the wind is just slowly peeling it back. I’m sure the red decal will be completely gone after a few more cycles. 🙂

Exactly! Those red and blue splotches look like my kid’s stickers peeling off the playroom wall.

My training is design and marketing, and I’m not a 50something white mail. I think the new tail looks political more than anything, sort of like “this plane wants to be Air Force One when it grows up.” Makes me wonder if the committee that approved it are all right-wing republicans.

Good commercial design, according to my eminent professors in the field, communicates clearly what the product is or does; by that standard the new logo fails. Maybe it was time for the aluminum tube look to go, but the replacement is “new Coke” all the way.

I am relieved to note that I was not the only one who thought the logo looked like the decal is peeling off. I do not see the rest of it as “classic ugly”, just forgettable. Not worth whatever they paid for it.
The problem is, CEOs all want to “leave their mark” on a company. Well, if you are trying to emerge from bankruptcy, your employees hate the company, and you are about to merge with a competitor, what kind of positive difference can you make? So pay a bunch of consultants to come up with some “design by committee.”
The point of all advertising is to make the brand memorable. Some beautiful or memorably funny ads may be brilliant art or television, but they fail because you do not remember the brand itself. The trick is to come up with something that conveys brand identity, and keep it for a long time, perhaps with minor tweaks (different colors?). The minute you redo a logo from scratch, you have thrown away any value in the previous brand.

5 MINUTES HATE! —? (Orwell would be proud!:) Who knew everyone here was such an art critic! And so many haters! What happened to at least humanely caring about the art team’s feelings a teensy bit? Corporate logo designers are people too! Can’t you kids play nice? Besides, after a water landing that tail will very easy to spot!

I may or may not know much about art, but I do know that if the design team was so sensitive that our comments will bruise their tender feelings, that they would never have their work painted fifty feet high across the tails of a fleet of airplanes.
And I take back what I said about the beak looking like a linoleum knife – it looks more like what you’d get if a linoleum knife could mate with a wood chisel.

Having said that, I don’t find the design as eye-bleedingly bad as some, but it’s not only not as iconic, but won’t transfer to other media (someone pointed out cups, coasters, etc.), not to a black & white medium.

Congratulations American Airlines. Not only did you update but you did it with a bang. Welcome to the 21st century. Gone from dowdy, fussy and old-fashioned to fresh, clean and modern. I’m impressed. It’s about time.

Patrick, when I saw the title to this blog entry I was expecting something awful……… but frankly when I clicked on the picture, I liked it! Hey I’m an old guy but have learned to live with change and I give this a thumbs up. Most of the other comments clearly agree with you but I guess we all have our own opinion.I bet if you give it a few years and it will grow on you.

The tail is obnoxious! The logo ugly, cold and dull it would look better on a credit card. Up until now I’ve never said anything bad about AA leadership, but this new design is horrific. I’ve worked with many teams designing new company logos, print material etc., the new AA logo would have never made it to the second round, the tail design rejected at first sight. I understand now why AA is one of the most hated companies in the travel industry… BAD LEADERSHIP.

I flew as a pilot with AA for 30 years and was proud of the LACK of our paint jobs and our Eagle and American Flag shown on our airplanes. Evidently the new composite airplanes have to be painted and I understand that. The clean Aluminum look of the past is gone forever BUT why this change to the tail and the leaving off of our proud Eagle? I like the font of the “American” name on the plane but the rest was dreamt up by some firm hired at great cost I would imagine. The founder of AA, Mr. C.R.Smith was the originator of the clean Aluminum look and he is probably rolling over in his grave!

Hi Guys,
I read these posts b/c a pilot friend of mine links them to her fb page. It seems like the strongest opinions on the new look come from airline employees – am I mistaken about that? I don’t work for an airline, I’m just a frequent flyer. I have to say that I don’t think most of us consider what the outside of the aircraft looks like; it’s a very small issue compared to poor service, having our luggage damaged, cramped quarters and feeling like some airlines are “nickel and diming” us. I promise you that if you had the world’s ugliest aircraft with great service, I would fly that airline instead of one with the most beautiful planes and the current levels of service that I regularly see.

That being said, I do agree with people who said that change for changes sake is usually a bad decision. I also think the posters who said this was a strategy to come one step closer to a joint AA/USAir logo are probably correct and as such I don’t think the average flyer or average employee were the target audience. This whole project, IMHO, speaks volumes about the way business is currently run: One group of knuckleheads running company “A” trying to impress a second group of similar knuckleheads running company “B” without any thought given to their employees or their customers.

I think the design of the plane matters to more people than anyone thinks. Moreover, it matters to employees who in greater proportions dislike American’s new design. It is the employees that provide the service. If it matters to them, then it matters to customers.

Have you ever sat in on one of those logo brainstorming meetings? I have and I must tell you that ad agencies can justify almost any look….and here is living proof. I fly American often. My carrier choice isn’t about how the planes are painted, but about the service. They are very price competitive on the routes I fly. Service has usually been on time. What more can you ask? I have just recently noted that gate agents have been openly complaining about how the company treats them. THAT is bad form and indicative of much deeper problems with American than a lame logo on the planes.

The worst aspect of this new design was not mentioned in the article . That is, the tail logo grotesquely distorts not only the shape of the tail, but ultimately the entire aircraft. Aircraft are almost always beautiful in the way the nose starts the shape, the wings stretch the form outward, and the tail punctuates the whole sculpture. The form is usually beautiful in itself and is by definition aerodynamic. But this new American Airlines graphic perverts the form visually, by painting a giant and non-aerodynamic extra large tail on the whole thing making it look entirely silly and obviously wrong at the same time, How could such a large historic firm plant such a goofy butt on an normally beautiful form? It’s a horror, I tell you.

The tail art makes me sad. It’s like they’ve been doing their best to try and break the lines and shapes of the plane, instead of working WITH them. Like they want us to forget it’s actually a jet plane under there.

I mean, I think I know where they’re coming from (“Everybody can paint a flag on the tail, let’s do something different and break the physical dimensions!”), but was that really a good idea? Different for the sake of being different?

You guys are all way too harsh! I really like it, it feels fresh and clean and distinctive in an unobnoxious way. I think it will wear well, and give that old dog a bit of a spark. Until they merge and hideously combine their new logo with that of USAir, a la United/Continental, that is….

At first I figured, oh heck they’ll eventually revert to the old livery just like public opinion forced JAL to re-introduce the Tsurumaru.

But then I read that AA had to get rid of its shiny bare metal looks because of 787 orders. Can anybody shed some light on that? Is it true that b/c of the 787’s composite structure, the bare aluminum look had to go?

I can only assume that someone at American has been watching too many episodes of ‘Pinp My Ride’. Calling that tail design ugly doesn’t even start to do it justice. The fuselage logo I actually think is okay, but you’d think airlines would have learnt from BA’s world art experiment a few years ago what not to do with tailfins.

Before they paint too many planes, someone needs to S T O P them!! They had a classic look — this looks like they turned a bunch of kindergarten children loose with crayolas to paint the planes. Yuck! Ickie Poo!! Pa-tooey!

I understand the need for contrast between the body and tail in order to generate some kind of visual dynamic and I applaud AA’s attempt to move it’s livery into a new era but to me, after 9/11, do you really want to confirm the stereotype of “loud, we’re #1” America?

The tail should not “contrast” the rest of the plane, but flow into its body creating a cohesive visage. The new American tail, looks as if the United States world police threw up on it. Moreover, it already looks more dated than the classic old logo.

Actually, while I don’t think the new logo is appealing, I consider it more of a “lateral move” than a downgrade in logo elegance. The real ruination occurred when AA moved from the old orange “lightning stripe” logo with a more elegant AA & eagle on the tail. The now-lamented outgoing logo always has always said “low expectations early-’70s era economizing” to me. Interestingly, the eagle-peaking-through-the shower-curtain is reminiscent of United’s old “tail spear” from the ’50s-’60s.

As a graphic designer I understand where your coming from. I’m definitely in the school of classic modern as you can never beat a Rand design (don’t think he did AA). I especially dislike three demensional logos such as the new beak design. They come off as dated even before they are rolled out and they reek of corporate idealism. I will say AA had it right from the start EXCEPT (and this is big) for the fact they do not do a good job of keeping up their planes, signage and gate stations so instead of a nice clean look you get the impression the airline hasn’t replaced a thing since 1985. A lot of times i’ll look out from the Virgin plane I’m flying on and see a AA plane and I’m horrified at the condition of the livery. Silver skin looks amazing brand new but after a few years at 35,000 feet it looks faded and beat to hell. I actually won’t fly American because everything they own looks like its in such bad shape. Keeping your original logo should be encouraged but only if you keep it looking new otherwise it just looks like you are too cheap to update and cutting corners wherever you can. Lastly the tail isn’t horrible but the rest has to go.

When Virgin planes are as old, or not even as old, as American’s planes they too will look worn and beaten. Fact is the look of the plane has nothing to do with safety. True, the new American log is simply horrid, but it will not detour people from booking a low fare. On the other hand I won’t fly Virgin, or any airline, that spends millions of dollars to demonize unions compelling employees to vote in their worst interest. If I had to prioritize, the national economy beats aesthetics every time.

Patrick, As I was listening to the NPR announcer basically read an over-plummy American Airlines press release about the new livery, complete with swelling music, I said out loud, “ut-oh, Patrick is NOT going to like this!” (My husband said, “Patrick who?”) Thanks for not disappointing me!

Not only is the new logo freaking hideous, but correct me if I’m wrong, they are now going to be PAINTING the entire airplane. My understanding — is this an urban legend? — is that keeping the naked aluminum skin that they used to use saved several hundred pounds of weight which translated into real fuel savings over hundreds of take-offs and landings. If so, not only have they destroyed an iconic logo, but they are hurting the environment, too.

Now, Patick, don’t be that way. Not exciting, but the AA logo had so much bad baggage. In ten years, no one will care. The iconic logos will live forever in our memories. Unfortunately, they will never adorn a flying commercial aircraft.

I tried to buy the Pan Am logo. The original logo and all the legal stuff that goes with it is maybe 200 sheets of paper neatly filed in a lawyer’s office. He wanted $50K for a non-exclusive right to use with restrictions for one year. That was more than I wanted to spend.

They would be better off working on improving their service than fixing what wasn’t broken. I avoid American Airlines because of their poor customer service and terrible on time record. Sad to say they used to be my favorite airline.

An absolute disgrace. Golden rule of marketing is to never, ever tinker with successful symbols of your brand in this case their logo. A good indicator that a company is either trying to distance itself from a total cockup or even worse some ‘guru’ being let loose on the corporate identity with no sense of history or ownership of the brand, just for them to move on and let the rank and file to pick up the pieces. Perhaps this is a precursor to their ‘merger’ with USAirways who already sport the stars n stripes on their tail.

I reckon they’ll revert back to their iconic livery before too long. If they have any smarts about ’em.

Nonsense. There’s no such “Golden rule”. People won’t stop using a product because the logo has changed. People won’t stop drinking Coca-Cola because they’ve changed the logo, they will stop drinking it if they change the taste and don’t like it. It’s up to American Airlines now to backup their new image with a good product.

I like the tail, silver base, and the script. The tail is my favorite actually… It looks fast, clean, fresh and distinctive. White birds with me-too accents are just worn out. When guys on forums paint their planes I just roll my eyes when they are excited to paint the just like some other guy’s ride.

You are right about the beak however. The logo tries to be too clever, and ends up too complicated. But to be fair, the old logo is uninspired. They both should be scrapped.

Why do I get the feeling the bulk of commentors are crotchety 55+ grey bushes? Can we get a little demographic insight? 😀

I actually kind of like the new tail. I’ll miss the unpainted silver look, it was the one thing that made American planes distinctive, but it’s not that big a deal, I guess.

The logo, however is a real pity. One of the nice things about the “old” logo is that it worked well in any medium. In colour or monochrome, screen or print, even stamped into the bottom of plastic drinking cups, it was consistent and distinctive. I doubt the new logo will be as versatile.

I’m a BA frequent flyer, but I often used to choose an American codeshare for transatlantic. The aesthetic and feel of the airline was actually a fairly big part of that (not the service, I mean, $7 for a drink that would be free on BA? Really?). Now that American are just another airline with a white plane, flag detail on the tail, and a boring modern logo, I don’t know if I’ll bother.

AAbsolutely hideous. This makes United’s ditching of the iconic tulip for the meaningless Continental wiffle ball seem like a minor transgression. That tail is probably the tackiest livery I’ve ever seen. Ugly American indeed.

As someone who has worked in branding, I can only imagine this was a product of some large committee. I have seen senior executives sign off on logos, only to have the board summon designers to make “tweaks” during a board meeting. That said, this is sad. The old logo was truly a classic piece of design and often used in case studies as a timeless design, not just in aviation but in any industry.

I sorta like it. IMO, the tail needs to be toned down somewhat, but the rest of the body looks fine. I don’t mind the new logo either, it will take some getting used to, but the design suggests motion which is hardly ever a bad thing in my book.

It pains you to write about it. Think how it pains us to read you. AA’s design is not about you. Design is not about what you like. You’re using this as an excuse to rehash your war stories. You’re sick!

Except that “Ask the Pilot” is Patrick’s very own private blog, where only people who want to read “Ask the Pilot” come. And, apparently, you. American’s livery is where anyone who wants to fly any airline in the US has to look at it. Furthermore, I don’t have to spend 10-15 minutes reading a blog post to be irritated by American’s new horror, I need to take a glance out a terminal window.

Design is absolutely about what Patrick likes, and about what I like, and about what you like.

If it’s not about what the public likes, what’s the point in branding at all? If people don’t like it, it’s not going to encourage them to book an American flight (it might not make them less likely, but if it makes no difference at all, it’s equally pointless)

As soon as I heard of its release, I looked at it, and came immediately here knowing there would be a classic PS post on the subject. Patrick, you did not disappoint, but for the first time in many years, I am going to strongly disagree with you. Key word is strongly.

I like it.

I think it’s great. It’s a departure, but it’s bold. It’s a brave gutsy move. New beginnings and a new story.

I am thinking that they are not looking at what is classic now, but what will be timeless (at least in airline terms) and this logo will last another 30 years without major revamp. This is a major claim for me to throw down, but I will do it. Is it retro 60’s timeless? No. But what will we say several decades down the pipe? I say, it will be timeless then. Bring it, on, naysayers!

Look at DL’s new livery. I was aghast when it came out, you were lukewarm (and recommended the red cheat stripe), but now several years later, I see DL blowing around the corner and it has more ramp presence now than it did when it was unveiled. It stands out, it too is bold and loud and proud. The UA Tulip is gone to the generic CO globe, USAir is still hopelessly clinging to some bizarre dystopian industrial soviet interpretation of the American flag, and Alaska has Uncle Bernie foolishly attempting to court Hawaiian’s lusty beauty. Dude, you’re from Alaska and probably suck at surfing.

I like American’s new livery. It’s going to look smart, it’s daring, and it speaks. (Also it will work well with an US/AA merger, but that’s another post).

I don’t know if the new logo will become a classic, but I think it’s unlikely. Not because I think it’s not classic-worthy, but just because I don’t think it will last 30 years.

Once a company starts with rebrands, they don’t seem to stop. If you saw how many times British Gas have changed their logo since the mid-1990s, you’d know what I mean – and that’s a stylised gas flame, how many different ways do you need to draw that??

I agree. I like it in the end. I must admit, I’ve been waiting for the release of the new design for months. So when I first saw it – it didn’t grab me at first. But I have to say that after looking at a few of the videos and a day or two later, I like it more and more. It is fresh. It is very much American with all the patriotism and glory and fan-fare. Nothing wrong with that. It certainly looks better than that awful design on Aeroflot and British Airways. I think it will be a winner. And contrary to what a lot of people think – I think it will grow on people as time goes by.

I agree, in the past it was great to see that AA tail at an overseas airport always gave me a warm feeling like seeing an old friend.
This new one is very disappointing – not distinctive enough – could be any airline.
My next nightmare is Doug Parker with his “three ring circus” running AA.

Patrick, you are getting predictable… As soon as I saw the new livery in the cheesy video American emailed me, I could have ghost written this post for you practically word for word. (Well, except for the “eagle’s beak poking through a shower curtain” part, very funny.)

Personally, I think the logo is awful, but without the use of gradients and shadows it would perhaps be salvageable. Imagine the “beak” outlined with a thin black line separating solid red and blue shapes – not too bad, though maybe reminiscent of the USPS. I wouldn’t be surprised if some poor logo designer presented something like that only to be told to make it more “modern” or “shiny”, leading to the Web 2.0-esque disaster here.

The livery, though, looks pretty cool in my opinion, especially the large “American” text. It will certainly be recognizable.

Most executives at most companies are a waste of carbon and an insult to mankind anyway. To be fair, it’s part of a more general degeneracy. Once upon a time people had taste and sense; nowadays… It’s visible in the large and in the small: just compare buildings of a century ago with those of today.

I heard a glowing review (“the new livery takes what was good about the old and builds upon it…”) on NPR while driving today. When I had a moment I looked it up, and: Barf-O-Rama. Really sad.

This neon sign used to adorn one of American’s old hangers at Logan Airport in Boston. Arriving at the airport as a kid at night, it was a thrilling sight. AA kept it; it hangs in a terminal there. One wonders what will become of it now.

The neon sign’s probably safe, Ned. Here in California, the old “Fly DC Jets” neon sign still glows on top of the old Douglas Aircraft in Long Beach, even though there’s no more Douglas or DC jets, and the descendants of Douglas have bastardized the old logo (but I guess they should get brownie points for having kept something that recalls the logo, instead of substituting it with a GMST).

#15 James – no they won’t be in USAir livery. The merged company will be named and branded as American Airlines

To all bad-mouthing the artists. I don’t know how AA did it but I have witnessed how several other airlines decide their livery, be old, modified, or all-new. The artists work under the direction of a high-level airline team. I have seen literally dozens of iterations until a final design that is approved by the airline president. Years of design experience subject to the taste [or lack thereof] of one person, the one who signs the check that pays the design team’s fee.

Garish and embarrassing and almost beyond belief. What was wrong with the classic and timeless clean silver planes with just the touch or red and blue? The good news is, when you are riding inside of one, you won’t be able to see it.

Flying a commercial jet requires thousands of hours of training, the mastery of extremely complex equipment, and an understanding of laws of physics that most people have never heard of let alone contemplated. Designing a logo only requires a leaky fountain pen.

The test of the validity of any criticism is “can you do better?” In this case, the criticism is valid because it’s more than obvious that even an elephant with a paintbrush in his nose could do better than this.

The validity of a person’s opinion on a piece of art or aesthetic design doesn’t vary based on the ability of that person to “do a better job”.

I can’t paint better than Van Gogh, but that doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion on whether Sunflowers is better than The Starry Night. I can’t play cello better than Yo-Yo Ma, but that doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion on his performance. I can’t design buildings better than Frank Lloyd Wright, but that doesn’t mean I can’t prefer The Guggenheim and Fallingwater to Price Tower.

It’s an old rule of rhetoric that the competence of the speaker has no bearing on the truth of what he says. The biggest fool in the world can say the sky is blue, but that doesn’t mean it’s raining.

And when we come to airline liveries (and any corporate branding) the judge *is* the public. It doesn’t matter how good the design group is, if the public hates the logo and livery, the design is a failure.

As a graphic designer, I feel compelled to defend my profession here at least, if not this logo (I agree, it is bland and a bad decision).
Hate the art if you must, but don’t slam a whole industry of hard-working people who create many things, not just corporate logos. Sure, we don’t fly people around or wear uniforms, but we are humans who have jobs and feelings. Instead, try to blame, if possible, the corporate process instead, which always results in a mealymouthed inoffensive piece of trash no matter what the designer/s intended.

And I say this as a fan of flying, and an avid fan of airplanes/Patrick Smith, so … let’s all smoke the peace pipe a bit, OK?

(But no less than 24 hours before your pilot shift, of course.) 🙂

(And I know this is the Web after all, so I fully expect to be flamed and shamed)

I do think that the trend in logos and liveries has been abysmal — across a wide range of industries, not just aviation — but I understand this is just one facet of design, and I don’t mean to diminish the talent and hard work of designers overall. And that’s a good point about the corporate process. I imagine that the end result of many corporate identity overhauls is effectively “livery by committee,” and probably a watered-down version of what the designers really intended.

So am I simply “unqualified” to comment? Does that go for everybody who is not part of a design team, or just pilots? And presumably these design team folks are, by definition, the only legitimate arbiters of taste, and would never be so incompetent as to come up with a crappy corporate identity? And I guess I am similarly in no position to judge, say a work of art, book… anything that does not fall within my direct circle of expertise?

I’ll remind you that while airplanes are not designed to be flown by airline branding consultants — and you’re right, I would NOT want (or expect) such a person to critique my flying (unless he or she happened to know a little something about flying planes) — the brand identities these teams come up with ARE, VERY MUCH SO, EXPECTED TO BE judged to and accepted/rejected by the public.

Patrick, you don’t even have to dignify this with a response. I am glad you used your platform to take the clowns who designed this monstrosity to task. My definition of a great logo is that it should be capable of being rendered beautifully in a 1″ x 1″ form and it should look great in black on white or reverse, white on black. This logo so clearly meets none of that criteria. This looks like a downmarket credit union’s branding.

Also what about the “AAdvantage” miles program which took “advantage” of the AA scheme? That was quite a cool if weird name. Anyway, this proves one thing – anything that US Air touches turns to crap. They are literally the worst of the worst. This makes frontier’s Go-Diego-Go animal menagerie look positively Saarinen cool by comparison.

The thing that I think this whole rebranding speaks to is that it convinces me that the airlines are truly populated with horrible managers. There is nothing left of the glory days of flying. Everyone who runs airlines today, except maybe Southwest, are giant just bland, soulless corporate middle managers. So why would expect them to have any design sense anyway. Hence the United powerpoint logo from Continental. But even that looks amazing compared to this – which I initially thought was a photoshop joke.

Ike, “A pilot commenting and criticizing the work of an enormous design team. I bet you LOVE when others who have no idea how to fly an aircraft criticize how you fly, right?” WRONG! If the “enormous design team” flew planes as well as they designed airline logs, then they would crash and burn. Indeed, they do not know what they are doing, but this pilot does. Shame on you Ike.

Just saw a picture of this and came to find out if you’d posted. I completely agree. However, I loved the old look. Maybe change up the text a little if you want an update, but this, this is a marketing bomb. I just want to pretend like the tail is not there altogether.